4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Blidcha, the Kyiv region.
5.  In September 2000 the applicant, a teacher at the Blidcha secondary education school (hereinafter “the School”; Блідчанська загальноосвітня школа), learned that his teaching hours, and, accordingly, his remuneration, were reduced as compared to the previous academic year.
6.  Seeking to restore his teaching hours and his remuneration, the applicant lodged two civil actions against the School with the Ivankivsky District Court (“the District Court,” Іванківський районний суд Київської області): civil action no.  2-384/2001 (“the reinstatement action”) and civil action no. 473/2001 (“the unlawful transfer action”).
7.  On 10 January 2001 the applicant lodged an action alleging that he had been unlawfully dismissed from his previous job and seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost income.
8.  On 8 August 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims as lodged outside the one-month statutory time-limit for lodging reinstatement actions. In its judgment, the court referred to 24 November 2000 as the date of lodging (the date of instituting the unlawful transfer action, see section C below).
9.  On 7 December 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Regional Court,” Апеляційний суд Київської області) upheld this judgment.
10.  On 29 March 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.
11.  On 24 November 2000 the applicant lodged an action complaining that he had been unlawfully transferred to a position with lower remuneration.
12.  On 29 November 2000 the District Court gave the applicant a time-limit to rectify the shortcomings in his statement of claim. In particular, the court instructed him to clarify his claims and pertinent factual circumstances. On 12 December 2000 the applicant submitted an addendum to his statement of claim.
13.  On 22 December 2000 the District Court returned the applicant's submissions as “not lodged” on account of his failure to rectify the shortcomings in his statement of claim. The applicant appealed in cassation.
14.  By letter of 16 January 2001, the District Court returned the applicant's appeal in cassation, having noted that the decision of 22 December 2000 was final and not subject to appeal.
15.  The applicant complained to the Regional Court about the District Court's blocking his appeal in cassation. On 3 April 2001 the Deputy President of the Regional Court instructed the District Court that the decision in question could be appealed against.
16.  Following these instructions, the District Court transferred the applicant's appeal in cassation to the Regional Court. On 29 May 2001 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 22 December 2000 and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration. The Regional Court found that the District Court had failed to indicate the shortcomings, not rectified by the applicant's addendum of 12 December 2000.
17.  On 1 August 2001 the District Court refused to initiate proceedings in respect of the applicant's claims. It stated that the applicant's pending reinstatement proceedings (action no. 2-384/2001 described in section B above) raised the same issues of fact and law. The applicant appealed.
18.  On 21 September 2001 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 1 August 2001 and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration. The Regional Court found that the applicant had lodged the action at issue prior to initiating his reinstatement proceedings. Accordingly, this action could not be rejected on the ground that the reinstatement proceedings were pending.
19.  Subsequently, the District Court took no further actions in the proceedings, although the applicant submitted numerous complaints about its inactivity to various authorities. On 29 June 2006 the President of the District Court explained to the applicant that the examination of the action at issue would be redundant, as there was a definitive decision concerning his reinstatement action (no. 2-384/2001).
20.  The proceedings are pending before the District Court.
21.  The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to institute criminal proceedings against Mrs K., the School director, for various allegedly unlawful acts directed against him.
22.  The applicant lodged a civil complaint against the District Court for its failure to adjudicate his claims raised in the unlawful transfer proceedings. On 4 February 2003 the Regional Court refused to initiate the proceedings, having found that the domestic law envisaged no right to bring litigation against a judicial authority for its procedural conduct in civil proceedings. The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to challenge this decision and the conduct of the Regional Court before the Supreme Court.